Alberto Ibargüen writes: At stake: The future of getting news to Americans

"We are living in a moment of extraordinary creativity. We will be a nation of media users, not consumers. We're going from the information model of one-to-many, of ''I write/You read'' to many-to-many, made possible by technology. Before Gutenberg, the monks copied illustrated manuscripts and were the keepers of information. Long after Gutenberg, during the Renaissance, society more or less figured out how to handle information. Today we are again living in those uncertain in-between years, when Gutenberg's technology broke the old rules and allowed something new called literacy. It would be wrong for Congress to determine what news and information gets to our citizens. I believe the Senate knows and understands this. But the inquiry Senator Kerry has begun should be the starting point of great and serious action by Congress, leading to the encouragement of experimentation to enable markets to find their way, to promote the evolution of public media 2.0, and, most urgent of all, to provide affordable, digital access to every American. " Alberto Ibarguen was publisher of the Miami Herald and served as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Venezuela in the 1960's.

Alberto Ibargüen, a former publisher of The Miami Herald, is president of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.

This week, under the leadership of Sen. John Kerry, the Senate's Commerce Committee opened hearings on the future of journalism and the role of information in supporting American democracy. The hearings are timely, in light of a technological revolution that threatens the newspaper and broadcast news industries and raises questions about the quality of democracy if there is no widely shared, reliable local news.

For the first time in the history of the republic, high school students can more easily learn about swine flu or the crisis in Darfur than about corruption in city government or decisions by the local school board. Until recently, the circulation area of a newspaper -- or the reach of a local television or radio signal -- roughly coincided with the physical boundaries of cities and counties from which we elected mayors, school boards and members of Congress. All politics was local and so was daily news coverage. It was news that was shared generally -- connecting neighbor to neighbor, paid for by the relationship between advertisers and customers.

Our information systems helped define American communities and helped give them individuality and character. Those systems have changed.

The new systems are digital, mobile and not bound by geography. The citizen is a user of information more than a passive consumer.

Mine is not a lament for the past, which excluded many, especially women and minorities, from the main pages of newspapers and the evening news. I welcome the democratization of media and its possibilities. The question is not how to save the traditional news industry, but how to meet the information needs of communities in a democracy so that people might, as Jack Knight used to put it, ``determine their own true interests.''

The stunning clarity of the First Amendment, that Congress shall make no law abridging five basic freedoms -- including free speech and free press -- should inform every action government takes in this arena. Nevertheless, there are least four areas where congressional action might properly and significantly support our national transition to a better, digital world.

First, nothing Congress can do is as important as providing universal, affordable digital access and fostering its adoption.

If the future of democracy's news and information is online, then we must ensure everyone is online, and bring technology training, digital literacy and higher quality networks to our local communities. Three great divides block this goal. They are economic, geographic and generational.

In an age where entry-level jobs require online applications, access must be generally available and affordable.

Rural areas are notoriously underserved and should be a focus of government concern.

Age is the third great divide. Groups like AARP are focusing on this issue and could be willing partners in training and outreach.

The $7 billion allotted in the federal stimulus for universal digital access is a smart, initial investment. But it is not nearly enough to ensure universal access. The establishment of a federal bank or cooperative to advance the digital connection of America is an important concept.

Additionally, support should also be given to media literacy programs to help citizens become more sophisticated media users.

At stake: The future of getting news to Americans BY ALBERTO IBARGUEN

Alberto Ibargüen, a former publisher of The Miami Herald, is president of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.

This week, under the leadership of Sen. John Kerry, the Senate's Commerce Committee opened hearings on the future of journalism and the role of information in supporting American democracy. The hearings are timely, in light of a technological revolution that threatens the newspaper and broadcast news industries and raises questions about the quality of democracy if there is no widely shared, reliable local news.

For the first time in the history of the republic, high school students can more easily learn about swine flu or the crisis in Darfur than about corruption in city government or decisions by the local school board. Until recently, the circulation area of a newspaper -- or the reach of a local television or radio signal -- roughly coincided with the physical boundaries of cities and counties from which we elected mayors, school boards and members of Congress. All politics was local and so was daily news coverage. It was news that was shared generally -- connecting neighbor to neighbor, paid for by the relationship between advertisers and customers.

Our information systems helped define American communities and helped give them individuality and character. Those systems have changed.

The new systems are digital, mobile and not bound by geography. The citizen is a user of information more than a passive consumer.

Mine is not a lament for the past, which excluded many, especially women and minorities, from the main pages of newspapers and the evening news. I welcome the democratization of media and its possibilities. The question is not how to save the traditional news industry, but how to meet the information needs of communities in a democracy so that people might, as Jack Knight used to put it, ``determine their own true interests.''

The stunning clarity of the First Amendment, that Congress shall make no law abridging five basic freedoms -- including free speech and free press -- should inform every action government takes in this arena. Nevertheless, there are least four areas where congressional action might properly and significantly support our national transition to a better, digital world.

First, nothing Congress can do is as important as providing universal, affordable digital access and fostering its adoption.

If the future of democracy's news and information is online, then we must ensure everyone is online, and bring technology training, digital literacy and higher quality networks to our local communities. Three great divides block this goal. They are economic, geographic and generational.

In an age where entry-level jobs require online applications, access must be generally available and affordable.

Rural areas are notoriously underserved and should be a focus of government concern.

Age is the third great divide. Groups like AARP are focusing on this issue and could be willing partners in training and outreach.

The $7 billion allotted in the federal stimulus for universal digital access is a smart, initial investment. But it is not nearly enough to ensure universal access. The establishment of a federal bank or cooperative to advance the digital connection of America is an important concept.

Additionally, support should also be given to media literacy programs to help citizens become more sophisticated media users.

Director Ron Tschetter: The PCOL InterviewPeace Corps Director Ron Tschetter sat down for an in-depth interview to discuss the evacuation from Bolivia, political appointees at Peace Corps headquarters, the five year rule, the Peace Corps Foundation, the internet and the Peace Corps, how the transition is going, and what the prospects are for doubling the size of the Peace Corps by 2011. Read the interview and you are sure to learn something new about the Peace Corps. PCOL previously did an interview with Director Gaddi Vasquez.

Read the stories and leave your comments.

Some postings on Peace Corps Online are provided to the individual members of this group without permission of the copyright owner for the non-profit purposes of criticism, comment, education, scholarship, and research under the "Fair Use" provisions of U.S. Government copyright laws and they may not be distributed further without permission of the copyright owner. Peace Corps Online does not vouch for the accuracy of the content of the postings, which is the sole responsibility of the copyright holder.

Story Source: Miami Herald

This story has been posted in the following forums: : Headlines; Figures; COS - Venezuela; Journalism; Publishing

PCOL4388035

By David Livingston (207.200.116.71) on Friday, May 29, 2009 - 1:27 pm:Edit Post

Ibarguen is typical of today's Leftist journalists in that he's in deep denial of the cause & impending death of the big city nespaper in America.

Since the 60s newspaper news & editorial rooms have become infested with radical Leftists who push their countercultural agendas as "the news" and the American people grown fed up with Stalinist and offbeat social propaganda have reached a broad concensus that they won't take it any more. That's why newspapers are dying straight across the nation.

It's not merely because of TV, the internet, that owners of papers are failing to invest enough in their businesses, but culturally blind Leftists refuse to comprehend this reality.

After all, it says something that the conservative papers, "The New York Post," "The Washington Times," and "The Orange CVounty Register" aren't losing circulation anywhere nearly to the extent that Leftist infested papetrs are. Moreover, "Fox News" on TV is gaining market share, but "CNN" and "MSNBC" are losing it.

Add a Message

This is a public posting area. Enter your username and password if you have an account. Otherwise, enter your full name as your username and leave the password blank. Your e-mail address is optional.